Editorial

Introduction to the ECRM conference issues

The subject of research methods in business is showing an extraordinary level of activity and innovation and this conference (the 9th European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management) reflected this. Papers ranged from those offering insight and help in applying such favorite methods as Grounded Theory (Douglas and Nunes et al) to those introducing new ideas such as the application of subtextual phenomenology (Valleck). Papers fell naturally into fourteen main themes and these formed the basis of the conference streams. The quality of the papers was of such a high level that it was decided to publish two conference issues, A & B. Issue A has the best papers on: Grounded Theory, Mixed Methods, Reflecting and Researching one’s own professional practice, Research Methods in Business and Research Methods in Strategy‑as‑practice. Issue B has the best papers on: Qualitative Data Analysis, Research Methodology and methodology issues, Teaching Research Methods and Methodologies and Trust and Ethics

The final selection of papers was agreed by the senior editor of the Journal and the guest editors. The comments of session chairs were taken into account in making the final selection of papers for these two issues of the EJBRM. The papers selected were chosen for their quality of writing, their relevance to the Journal’s objective of publishing papers that offer new insights or practical help in the application of research methods in business research.

Issue A

These papers dealt with the problems facing management researchers in a variety of ways. Two papers develop new ideas (Valleck, Venkateswaran and Prabhu). Vallek’s paper introduces a relatively new method for researching in that it advocates the use of personal experience through the application of subtextual phenomenology (Valleck). The paper by Venkateswaran and Prabhu claim that their topic ‑ strategy‑as‑Practice is just emerging as a new subject. This is the study of individual and organizational actions in the process of strategizing. The paper gives an insightful view of the problems of taking a holistic view of such actions. The two papers on Grounded Theory could not have been more different in their aims, one (Douglas) shows us how the method can be used to identify the differing perspectives of stakeholders, while the second (Nunes et al) offers a valuable insight into managing the key initial stage of the method through the use of pilot studies. The papers on mixed methods (Papadimitriou, Molina‑Azorin and Cameron) both offer insight into how and when to use this method. Papadimitriou is a helpful paper to others in understanding the MMs approach to research. Whereas Molina‑Azorin and Cameron carry out a survey of the way Mixed methods has been applied in a number of key organizational research journals. The remaining three papers offer valuable insights into key steps of the research process: O'hEocha et al give a review of the use of focus groups from the literature which offers us insight into the value and appropriateness of using this technique. Heine uses an example of analyzing the behavior of a niche group to discuss the twin problems of surveys – that of reaching the target group and then motivating them to respond. Beck et al address the practical problems of making use of data (on major change projects) over which the researcher has little control as to choice or the conditions within which the collection takes place.

Abstract

To gain ‘real world’ understanding of the managerial approach adopted in an established small business when taken over by another entrepreneur from that of it’s predecessor. The research highlights perceptual differences internal stakeholders (employees and the new owner) have regarding the business and the managing of it. Illustrated are the commercial consequences that can ensue from the change of ownership of an established enterprise through to the managerial style perceived appropriate by a new entrepreneur, and, subsequent employees’ cognitions and behaviours that ensue as reactions to changed managerial practices. Findings are reviewed against existing theories within the fields of entrepreneurship, decision theory and management. Design/Methodology/Approach: Situated within the qualitative paradigm, the unit of analysis being one small (nevertheless complex) organization affords the researcher opportunity to inquire deeply into case study phenomena. The unit of analysis soon develops, through the application of ‘original’ grounded theory methodology (utilizing depth interviews and observations), to being the human interactions of all actors within the organization. Discovering meanings and behaviours across a number of dimensions produces a rich textual account of actors’ perceptions of enterprise events and subsequent repercussions to the business. Findings: Emergent conceptual categories and supportive properties conveyed the new entrepreneur’s limited understanding of the business he had bought, along with his technical, managerial and decision‑making style seemed insurmountable management impediments. Substantive theory that captured the social processes and phenomenological contentions from the grounded theory analysis conclude. Not wholly proffering generalisable pronouncements, the research presents a robust framework for further small enterprise research and grounded approaches to data capture and analysis. Implications: Implications of the study will be of interest to entrepreneur and qualitative researchers, interested in the findings as a contribution to the field, and, the grounded theory methodology applied in establishing ontological ‘groundedness’ of inductively derived at theories. Originality/Value: There is a paucity of such research outside the big business spectrum. Contributes at a ‘substantive’ level by focusing on the entrepreneur’s ‘post take‑over’ management approach, and, at a more formal level through empirical ‘owner‑manager‑entrepreneurial’ research situated within the qualitative paradigm, where a deficiency of ‘depth’ cases remains. And especially for this forum, the findings are the result of meticulous attention to data gathering, analysis and emergent theory building, through the application of grounded theory methodology. Grounded theory has seen limited application to‑date in the small business and entrepreneurship field.

Abstract

Grounded Theory is an established methodological approach for context specific inductive theory building. The grounded nature of the methodology refers to these specific contexts from which emergent propositions are drawn. Thus, any grounded theory study requires not only theoretical sensitivity, but also a good insight on how to design the research in the human activity systems to be studied. The lack of this insight may result in inefficient theoretical sampling or even erroneous purposeful sampling. These problems would not necessarily be critical, as it could be argued that through the elliptical process that characterizes grounded theory, remedial loops would always bring the researcher to the core of the theory. However, these elliptical remedial processes can take very long periods of time and result in catastrophic delays in research projects. As a strategy, this paper discusses, contrasts and compares the use of pilot studies in four different grounded theory projects. Each pilot brought different insights about the context, resulting in changes of focus, guidance to improve data collection instruments and informing theoretical sampling. Additionally, as all four projects were undertaken by researchers with little experience of inductive approaches in general and grounded theory in particular, the pilot studies also served the purpose of training in interviewing, relating to interviewees, memoing, constant comparison and coding. This last outcome of the pilot study was actually not planned initially, but revealed itself to be a crucial success factor in the running of the projects. The paper concludes with a theoretical proposition for the concept of contextual sensitivity and for the inclusion of the pilot study in grounded theory research designs

Abstract

As methodology, mixed methods (MM) provide a means to facilitate and explain several complex phenomena across various disciplines. Tashakkori and Creswell (2008), identified a nurturing and dynamic intellectual community as one that encourages scholarly debate and intellectual risk‑taking as well as developing graduate students as stewards of their disciplines. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to describe how a multilevel mixed design was applied to a research project designed to investigate the adoption of quality management in Greek universities through the lens of neo‑institutional theory. Appropriate research design is a critical choice when performing organizational research, especially when the research lacks previous precedents; thus, this gap in the literature empirically investigated these issues by using MM, which led to a process in design development and compatibility to overcome many challenges. This paper presents part of the methodological and pragmatical rationales that guided the choice to use a multilevel study mixed method design by using both concurrent and sequential data collection at the macro, meso, and micro levels in Greek universities.

Abstract

Mixed methods research (the combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods in the same study) is becoming an increasingly popular approach in the discipline fields of sociology, psychology, education and health sciences. Calls for the integration of quantitative and qualitative research methods have been advanced in these fields. A key feature of mixed methods research is its methodological pluralism, which frequently results in research which provides broader perspectives than those offered by monomethod designs. The overall purpose and central premise of mixed methods is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems and complex phenomena than either approach alone. Despite calls for the combined use of quantitative and qualitative research in business and management studies, the use of mixed methods in business and management has seldom been studied. The purpose of this paper is to review the application of mixed methods research within organisational research. The study reported in this paper identifies the use of mixed methods in three organisational journals for the period 2003 to 2009: the Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Organizational Research Methods. The landmark Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, played a pivotal role in providing both the visibility and credibility of mixed methods as a third methodological movement and since the publication of this seminal work the mixed methods movement has rapidly gained popularity. Business and management researchers need to be made aware of the growing use and acceptance of mixed methods research across business and organisational journals. This paper examines the main characteristics of mixed methods studies identified in the sample in terms of purposes and designs, and posits suggestions on the application of mixed methodologies.

Abstract

This paper presents a methodology for first‑person, intuitive research. It argues that it is possible to do rigorous research using subjective, first‑person data. The methodology, which I call Subtextual Phenomenology (sometimes shortened to Subphenomenology), provides a theoretical framework for such practice.

Abstract

This paper discusses an innovative focus group approach used to study an Information Systems Development (ISD) environment. The research had to cope with the application of a broad framework, untested in practice, seeking to elicit potentially highly sensitive opinions and judgments in a highly pressurised, time‑restricted environment. The researchers’ design of the focus groups is discussed along with an evaluation of the final approach used. The paper concludes with a set of issues for future researchers to consider when designing focus groups for their own studies, along with a set of lessons learned and recommendations arising from the research team’s experience in this study

Abstract

Luxury consumer behaviour is still a relatively new area of research, one that relies largely on paid surveys and especially on student samples. However, it is questionable whether moderately paid surveys really can attract wealthy heirs or busy managers or if students can imagine themselves in the role of experienced luxury consumers. In addition, many researchers hesitate to target luxury consumers. One reason is the ongoing discussion in the literature as to what constitutes a luxury consumer and as to how luxury consumers can be distinguished from non‑luxury consumers and ultimately, how to identify them for empirical studies. What is more, this particular target group is notoriously hard to access and difficult to persuade to participate in any survey. Despite these problems, no article could be found in the literature, which addressed either the identification or the motivation of respondents for luxury consumer surveys (LCS). Therefore, the objective of this paper is to categorize and to discuss the means of identification and motivation of participants for LCS. Based on a literature analysis of existing LCS, the paper presents a categorization of the major research objectives, target groups, and identification methods for LCS. Subsequently, it provides an overview of common methods of participant motivation and discusses their suitability for LCS, which suggests thinking about some non‑monetary incentives that could convince luxury consumers to participate in a survey in their own interest. As this idea coincides with the notion of viral marketing, it seems promising to adapt this concept for viral participant acquisition (VPA). Consequently, the paper presents a case study detailing the implement‑ation of VPA on a recent LCS and concludes with the lessons learned.

Abstract

There is a growing interest within research in management studies to regard ‘organizational practice’ as a highly relevant field of empirical observation. Planned change projects turn out to be promising platforms for theorizing about practice, theory testing, and the innovation and improvement of organizational practices. However, natural contexts can also seriously limit the possibility to transfer the outcomes to broader contexts. Both external and construct validity are evidently a matter of serious concern in this kind of research. Field researchers are placed for difficult assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of their data set. What is the richness and added value of the data, what are the flaws that limit their value for other contexts, and what can be done to reduce the potential threats to external and construct validity? The present paper offers a practical roadmap that leads field researchers through a number of basic design considerations. The steps in the roadmap are illustrated by examples from a large‑scale strategic development program for SMEs in the Euregion Meuse‑and‑Rhine.

Abstract

Strategy‑as‑practice research provides understanding of a complex phenomenon in language rich and holistic process terms, rather than statistically significant but limited variance terms. It requires mapping individual and organisational activities in the process of strategizing. This article assesses four research issues in strategy‑as‑practice research and their impact in advancing this field: challenges in bounding the scope of the research question, issues with the unit of analysis, difficulties in defining the dependent variable of outcomes and finally the challenge in specifying a particular level of analysis, all of which present complexities in the design of data collection. We suggest two broad alternative approaches that have the potential to push the frontiers of methodology to greater rigour in strategy as practice research. First, quantification methods that can capture practice can be a valuable tool, a paradigm that has been ignored in much of strategy‑as‑practice research. Second, better process data may be revealed by organizations that voluntarily initiates a consultation process with a researcher as it benefits by doing so, so we suggest that clinical research methods, that include such intervention, provide better understanding of the phenomena of strategizing. We make a case for why these methods must for acceptability in strategy‑as‑practice research.